US v. Louie Sinclair

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed [998540148] amending and superseding prior opinion. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00083-JAB-1. Copies to all parties. [08-4272]

US v. Louie Sinclair

Doc. 0

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 1

AMENDED OPINION UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4272

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LOUIE GEORGE SINCLAIR, a/k/a Vincent Metallo, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00083-JAB-1)

Submitted:

August 18, 2008 Amended Opinion Filed:

Decided:

September 17, 2008

March 8, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Louie George Sinclair pled guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2000), and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. Sinclair appeals. His attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for review. Sinclair has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising We affirm. *

additional issues.

I Sinclair asserts that the district court erred when it used the 2001 version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) in calculating his advisory Guidelines range. We

disagree.

We note first that, although Sinclair's sentencing

hearing took place in February 2008, the district court properly did not use the version of the Guidelines then in effect United

because,

under

Fourth

Circuit

precedent,

see,

e.g.,

States v. Iskander, 407 F.3d 232, 242 & n.8 (4th Cir. 2005), to do so would have resulted in a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court was obligated to use the Guidelines in effect

This opinion is issued following recall of the mandate previously issued.

*

2

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 3

when

Sinclair

committed

the

offense.

See

USSG

§ 1B1.11(a),

(b)(1), p.s. (2007). We offense; have stated it that wire on fraud [a] is not an ongoing

instead,

"occur[s]

specific,

identifiable

occasion[]." Cir. 1991).

United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 739 (4th Wire fraud "is complete when a transmission is made United States v.

to further the overall scheme to defraud."

Tulaner, 512 F.3d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Carrington, 96 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1996). Sinclair committed

wire fraud in March 2002, when the transmission in question took place. Accordingly, the district court correctly used the 2001

version of the Guidelines in calculating his advisory Guidelines range, and his base offense level was correctly determined to be 6, see USSG § 2B1.1(a). level enhancement for Further, there was no error in the twounauthorized use of a means of

identification under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C)(i).

II Sinclair contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his offense level by two levels under USSG § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust. The record reflects that

Sinclair represented to his victim, Beverly Dube, that he was a financial planner and tax preparer and that, in reliance on this representation, Dube permitted Sinclair to prepare and file her 3

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 4

tax returns for several years, claiming a sizable refund each time. false Dube did not know that the returns contained materially information and claimed refunds to which she was not

entitled.

Sinclair directed the IRS to wire each refund to a He

joint account that he had persuaded Dube to open with him.

gave Dube bogus copies of the returns, which showed that she was not due refunds, but instead owed tax. The adjustment applies "[i]f the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that of significantly the offense." facilitated USSG the commission A position or of

concealment

§ 3B1.3.

"[p]ublic or private trust" means a position "characterized by professional discretionary deference)." or managerial that discretion is ordinarily (i.e., given substantial considerable

judgment

USSG § 3B1.3, cmt. n.1.

Whether the defendant

held a position of trust must be approached from the perspective of the victim. Cir. 2001). United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 671 (4th We of review what de novo the a district position clear court's of legal and

interpretation review related

constitutes findings

trust

factual

for

error.

United

States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 535-36 (4th Cir. 2005). Here, Sinclair represented to Dube that he was a

financial planner and that he prepared tax returns for a living. Dube relied on these representations, 4 allowing Sinclair to

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 5

prepare and file her tax returns.

Sinclair's representations

significantly facilitated the commission of the instant offense, and the enhancement was proper.

III Sinclair contends that the district court erred when it refused to depart for a variety of reasons, including his criminal having disorder, history's voluntarily and his over-representing surrendered, being an alien. his his criminal record, his

compulsive This court

gambling lacks "the

authority to review a sentencing court's denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so." 2008). United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. Because the district court at sentencing recognized that

it had the discretion to depart, but elected not to exercise that discretion, its decision not to depart is not reviewable on appeal.

IV Sinclair brief. raises a variety of claims in the pro se

Because the issues are raised for the first time on See Fed. R. Crim. P.

appeal, our review is for plain error.

52(b); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.

5

Case: 08-4272

Document: 30

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 6

2002).

We

conclude

that

Sinclair

has

not

established

plain

error with respect to any of these claims.

V In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record for any meritorious issues and have found none. therefore affirm. We

This court requires that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If the client requests believes that such a

petition would be frivolous, counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must We

state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6